“Although there is considerable evidence that a subset of infants has an increased risk of sudden death after receiving vaccines, health authorities eliminated "prophylactic vaccination" as an official cause of death...”
No.
1/
No.
1/
“...so medical examiners are compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications.”
I am going to contact the journal.
Anyone else?
2/2
I am going to contact the journal.
Anyone else?
2/2
“Acknowledgements:
The author is grateful to Dr. Renee Tocco Hunter and the Foundation for Pediatric Health for payment of the open access publication fee which allows everyone to freely access this paper.”
Ahhh....
That’ll be:
realhealthcareclinic.com/meet-the-staff…
The author is grateful to Dr. Renee Tocco Hunter and the Foundation for Pediatric Health for payment of the open access publication fee which allows everyone to freely access this paper.”
Ahhh....
That’ll be:
realhealthcareclinic.com/meet-the-staff…
“Dr. Renee Tocco Hunter is the founder of the Foundation For Pediatric Health, a nonprofit organization, and Hope for Autism. She started her distinguished career at Sherman College where she earned her doctorate degree as a chiropractic physician.”
Urgh!
Urgh!
From the paper:
“Throughout the 1980s, sudden infant deaths continued to skyrocket.”
Data from American SIDS institute:
sids.org/what-is-sidssu…
“Throughout the 1980s, sudden infant deaths continued to skyrocket.”
Data from American SIDS institute:
sids.org/what-is-sidssu…
Honestly: how the hell did this get published?
“There are 130 official ways for an infant to die, as categorized in the ICD, and one unofficial way for an infant to expire: from a fatal reaction to vaccines.”
This is beyond wrong.
This is just diabolical.
#VaccinesWork
“There are 130 official ways for an infant to die, as categorized in the ICD, and one unofficial way for an infant to expire: from a fatal reaction to vaccines.”
This is beyond wrong.
This is just diabolical.
#VaccinesWork
I mean, we have actual research into VAERS reports:
Eg
“There is considerable evidence that vaccination is not causally associated with SIDS...”
academic.oup.com/cid/article/61…
Eg
“There is considerable evidence that vaccination is not causally associated with SIDS...”
academic.oup.com/cid/article/61…
N Z Miller writes:
“Throughout the 1980s, sudden infant deaths continued to skyrocket.”
🚨THIS IS NOT TRUE!🚨
American SIDS Institute
“The rate.. and the actual number of infants classified as SIDS have fallen all over the world in the last 40 years.”
sids.org/what-is-sidssu…
“Throughout the 1980s, sudden infant deaths continued to skyrocket.”
🚨THIS IS NOT TRUE!🚨
American SIDS Institute
“The rate.. and the actual number of infants classified as SIDS have fallen all over the world in the last 40 years.”
sids.org/what-is-sidssu…
And this is just UNBELIEVABLY STUPID!
Using Miller’s data, 1048 SIDS deaths were reported in the 60 days following vaccination.
He claims that if these were randomly distributed “one would expect 17.47 SIDS cases per day”.
This is just plan in STUPID.
A child could see this.
Using Miller’s data, 1048 SIDS deaths were reported in the 60 days following vaccination.
He claims that if these were randomly distributed “one would expect 17.47 SIDS cases per day”.
This is just plan in STUPID.
A child could see this.
Actually! Looking at the all infant deaths reported to VAERS vs the SIDS deaths from Miller’s “analysis”:
Isn’t he actually showing a fewer deaths from SIDS than you’d expect due to this reporting bias (due to association with the vaccine)?
Eg Day 1 13% vs 17% of all?
Isn’t he actually showing a fewer deaths from SIDS than you’d expect due to this reporting bias (due to association with the vaccine)?
Eg Day 1 13% vs 17% of all?
Call for HELP!
Can I ask a favour? From anyone familiar with running VAERS enquiries?
Literally: could they just check Miller’s data? I know he is blatantly misusing it!
But could anyone run a search on his criteria to see if they get the same numbers?
That’d be great!
Can I ask a favour? From anyone familiar with running VAERS enquiries?
Literally: could they just check Miller’s data? I know he is blatantly misusing it!
But could anyone run a search on his criteria to see if they get the same numbers?
That’d be great!
It’s just that his analysis is so utterly nonsensical (and I really mean this, it’s just utterly wrong) I don’t trust him to have got this bit right...
I’m not familiar with running such enquiries myself!
I’m not familiar with running such enquiries myself!
The figures he comes up with are:
Hah!
Figured out what Miller has done.
Since he refers to:
“adverse reactions to vaccines administered in the United States”
I assumed his data was based on vaccines administered in the United States.
So under “location” I chose:
“The United States/territories/Unknown”
Figured out what Miller has done.
Since he refers to:
“adverse reactions to vaccines administered in the United States”
I assumed his data was based on vaccines administered in the United States.
So under “location” I chose:
“The United States/territories/Unknown”
In fact Miller’s data is for ALL, which includes FOREIGN.
If you search on ALL you get 1,046
Of which 184 (17.59%) are FOREIGN.
That’s the SIDS/sudden death data.
For all deaths:
If you search on ALL you get 1,046
Of which 184 (17.59%) are FOREIGN.
That’s the SIDS/sudden death data.
For all deaths:
For all deaths:
Miller 2605, I get 2607 (fine, some minor differences expected).
Of these 692 (26.54%) are FOREIGN.
So his data isn’t for vaccines in the US, for the deaths about a quarter are foreign.
He doesn’t mention this.
Presumably because he doesn’t know.
Miller 2605, I get 2607 (fine, some minor differences expected).
Of these 692 (26.54%) are FOREIGN.
So his data isn’t for vaccines in the US, for the deaths about a quarter are foreign.
He doesn’t mention this.
Presumably because he doesn’t know.
Here are the results of my search and Miller’s table for all deaths:
You can see it’s the same data set, and includes about 1 in 4 which were not in the United States.
Next up SIDS/sudden deaths.
You can see it’s the same data set, and includes about 1 in 4 which were not in the United States.
Next up SIDS/sudden deaths.
Sudden deaths, SIDS.
Agains: my VAERS search, clearly the same data set returned and this time
184 (17.59%) are in a foreign location, not the USA.
That’s about 1 in 6.
Shoddy, Miller, shoddy.
Was this peer reviewed?
Agains: my VAERS search, clearly the same data set returned and this time
184 (17.59%) are in a foreign location, not the USA.
That’s about 1 in 6.
Shoddy, Miller, shoddy.
Was this peer reviewed?
OK: also now that I know I have the right data set, I was a little puzzled that Miller used “sudden death” as well as “sudden infant death”.
It only adds 44 to the total, BUT weirdly looking at them no fewer than 35 of them are foreign.
That’s 80% of them.
Shoddy?
It only adds 44 to the total, BUT weirdly looking at them no fewer than 35 of them are foreign.
That’s 80% of them.
Shoddy?
Does this matter? The paper is so unbelievably shit anyway...
YES! Yes it matters.
His table is labeled
“Onset of SIDS post-vaccination, USA”
They’re not.
Some are sudden deaths (not SIDS) and some are foreign (not USA).
YES! Yes it matters.
His table is labeled
“Onset of SIDS post-vaccination, USA”
They’re not.
Some are sudden deaths (not SIDS) and some are foreign (not USA).
I would also note that Miller claims that the cases should be distributed evenly across the 60 days (why 60 days, one could reasonably ask?)
Should they not likewise be spread evenly across the 30 years?
So 1046/30 each year? 35 a year?
Because they’re not…
Should they not likewise be spread evenly across the 30 years?
So 1046/30 each year? 35 a year?
Because they’re not…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
